Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr)

[MorningStar]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on this?  What is it that "priesthood leader{s}" are not doing that you think they should be doing (or vice versa)?

I am interested in better understanding your perspective on this.  Could you explain what "hide their past" means in relation to priesthood leaders?

I served as my ward's bishop some years ago.  In that capacity, I regularly received information that was intended to be held in confidence.  Broadly, the Church expects bishops to keep such confidences (legal obligations may require deviation from this), and I did that.  Do you think this was an incorrect course of action for me?

Trust must be earned, yes.  And sometimes even then an individual member will almost certainly face constraints on his activity in the Church based on bad behavior.  

Yes, someone who has abused children has likely permanently lost any privilege of serving in a calling in which he interacts with kids.

Thanks,

-Smac

Glady. Sorry, I don't know how to break things up into separate quotes, but I'll explain. 

My old bishop and stake president say this man's actions were a long time ago and that he's doing better. No he's not. I have many examples of him not doing better and being a danger to the ward. They try to keep his criminal history quiet because he repented. He's not on the registry anymore, but anyone can Google him and see that he was fired from a college for CP. He had thousands of files and he even admitted to sexting with minors who he found through online gaming. He presented himself in the chat as a tutor of math and that's how he reeled his victims in. My cop brother said someone must've screwed up his case because he should've been looking at a level 2 offense of "communicating with a minor for immoral purposes," but he got a misdemeanor charge for "attempting to deal in depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct." I have the audio of him talking to detectives and admitting everything. His files even contained babies, but prepubescent girls are his favorite. 

When he ended up in my ward (boundaries changed) my girls were 9 and 3. He was still excommunicated, but he was allowed to do musical numbers and he left me a voicemail asking me to play the piano for him. I ignored him. The ward music chair then called me and asked on his behalf. I told her I was pretty sure she knows his history and that what if I didn't know and brought my girls to rehearse with me? I said, "I would feel utterly betrayed by you when I found out later." She apologized and said she was in an awkward position. I was stake music chair and told her considering he wasn't even allowed to pray publicly, why should he be doing musical numbers? 

He kept crossing my boundaries. As soon as he touched me, I went to my new bishop and told him, "I had a prompting to Google him and this is what I found. Will you tell him he needs to assume we all know what he did and that women don't want him touching them?" He said yes and then he touched me again at the next activity. And then again in the chapel when I was just trying to get to my seat with my family. He put his hand on my shoulder and referencing my 9-year-old, he said, "You can tell who this one belongs to because she looks just like you." I was furious, but didn't want to make a scene in the chapel with the prelude playing. My bishop wasn't there because he was out of town, but as soon as he got back, I went to him again and he said he would tell him specifically not to touch me and he also told him not to talk to me for any reason. But he did. He stared at me for long periods of time. approached me with my 3-year-old next to me and said my name. I ignored him and he said my name louder. I left. He did that to me several times. Then on Mother's Day when my brother was visiting, he witnessed him starting at me for a long time and told me, "Pull his records. That guy needs to be on a short leash." 

I couldn't enjoy church anymore or activities because of him. I would complain to the bishop and then he would get another private talking to - a "reminder" to mind his boundaries. 

He went to ward choir when he wasn't supposed to. It was in someone's home. Oh, he "forgot." 

Considering how he wasn't respecting my boundaries, I told Bishop I didn't want him to participate in Messiah. He said, "I already told him he could do it." So he couldn't untell him? He ended up putting his hand on my friend's knee, she told him not to do that, he smiled, and then he sent her a friend request the next day. As stake music chair, I reported the behavior and my stake president said he was just trying to get her attention. By touching her knee? She also watched him run an instrument down a woman's back, watched for her reaction, and then looked pleased when she was annoyed. I could go on and on. 

I then got on a community women's forum and posted an article to his arrest, told my story, and said if he's acting like this when he's being watched, what's he doing in the community? It got back to my stake president and then I got called into the bishop's office for disclosing this man's past when he's trying to be blessed by the Atonement. Unreal. I can send you the email if you want. I can't even explain how hurt I am after dealing with this for almost a decade. 

We had to move our Christmas program to zoom at the last minute because it snowed. He played a solo and right after it was over, he started to get undressed. Someone texted his wife to alert her and so we don't know how much more he was planning to take off. My daughter and other children were going to perform and he was going to be in what state of undress? I thought, "Well that oughta do it." But months after that, he was called as the ward music coordinator and that gave the deviant and excuse to talk to families. He approached a teenage girl and said, "Your mom isn't answering. What song is your family going to do?" 

A friend called to fellowship his wife after surgery and she put my friends on speaker phone. He invited himself to the conversation and told her that he enjoys tutoring kids online and he finds them through online gaming. Exactly what he was doing when he was sexting them. I have the chat logs from the police. His LinkedIn also says he's looking for tutoring and teaching opportunities. I don't know how else to spell it out that he is not recovered. 

When I told my bishop about him staring at me, he said, "Well it's not like he has a thing for you." He also said I probably find him creepy because he has Autism. No, because he's a creep and he never stopped being a creep. This is a nightmare. Just a few weeks ago, after not attending our ward for over a year (going to his daughter's ward instead), he showed up to play for our ward variety show. A 12-year-old girl introduced him. Not OK. Afterward, a new woman in the ward said, "Now we know where to get accordion lessons." I lost it and left. 

People have asked, "What's the hard in just letting him perform?" That exact scenario. Those who don't know might hire him to teach their kids and he got to promote himself. That activity was put on by the primary. Of course he showed up for that one. I guess I'm back to not going to ward activities because I never know when he'll show up and I can't handle it anymore. I have a strong testimony of the church though and that's why I'm still here. He's just made it an unbearable experience and I can't believe he's allowed to go to ward Halloween parties. Last time he made a beeline for my friend who is very bothered by him, put his hand on her shoulder, and his knee up against her knee at her table. She wrote to him later and said, "If you ever touch me again, I will consider it assault and I'll call the police." He offered to help a family with their kids at that party. Unbelievable. 

I talked to a lawyer in January about my options and she said I could confront him if I saw him doing something I didn't like. Multiple people had told him to stick with the men, but he didn't. After two women wrote to him after the Halloween party, his first time back to church was a year ago January 19th. A friend came into the foyer crying because he upset her and I walked up to him afterwards and told him, "You bothered my friend. Women do not come to church to be bothered by you and considering your criminal history, you should not approach women." His wife then said, "And you are unforgiving." I snapped, "You need to keep him away from women!" I walked away and he told my husband, "Your wife needs to be more Christlike." 

I can't talk to my new bishop about this because I can't handle any comments like, "We shouldn't focus on his sins." Protect the flock from the wolf! I would need a therapist to help explain my view and his deviant, unrepentant behavior. Our state sucks. He should still be on the registry, but he's not. Also, he was made ward music coordinator to "help keep him active."  Meanwhile, they have no idea what this is doing to me and others. Who's trying to keep us active? 

 

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would be curious about this.  It seems incongruent with a few generalized observations:

Oh boy, here we go.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, plenty of men have loved ones who are or could be subject to abuse, and hence would find any abuse abhorrent, and hence they can and do "relate to the victim." 

I would find any abuse of women abhorrent. I have women friends!!!!!

Yeah, that is not how anything works. It is always the abuser defenders who have to talk about how they have a daughter or a wife or whatever. Really? So if you didn’t care about a woman you would support abuse generally? You can tell how insincere it is by the fact that they feel they have to present proof that they know women.

In any case this isn’t some logical conclusion. You can care about women and still defend abusers. Men (and women) do it all the time. This isn’t a logical 

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, plenty of men have themselves been victims of abuse, and so not only "relate to" victims, but have experienced abuse themselves.

Abused people do not automatically develop empathy for people who are abused. Generational abuse exists in defiance of this imagined standard you are proposing where abuse victims will be appalled and oppose all abuse.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Third, I think some (many?) men are scared of being falsely accused of misconduct of this sort.  This has perhaps been augmented by the past many years of the "Believe All Women" and "MeToo" regimes, which have effectively inverted the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption, at least as to men as a category.  Perhaps some men are therefore reluctant to reflexively and uncritically accept every published allegation of misconduct, and this reluctance is then construed by some as "subconsciously distanc{ing} themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective."

No, it is just reflexively taking the man’s side cloaked in imagined fears and conspiracy mongering and misogyny about all those lying women.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

A while back a young woman of my acquaintance rather matter-of-factly stated that it is entirely normal in her "generation" of young women to view all men - all men - as "potential rapists," and that she shares this sentiment.  She was surprised that I was surprised at this statement.  In fact, I think she was a little offended that I was surprised.  I asked her "What would you say to a friend if she told you that she views all black men as 'potential rapists?'"  She responded along the lines of "Well, that would be terrible and racist."  I asked her why, since some black men do commit rape, and she responded: "Yes, but you can't blame all black men just because some few of them do something wrong."  I then told her that I agreed with her on that point, but I then asked why it does not apply to her "all men are 'potential rapists'" statement.  She could not formulate a response.

And everyone stood up and clapped.

I’ll take “Things That Didn’t Happen” for $100 Alex.

[bluebell]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would be interested in seeing that study, if you have access to it.

I've tried looking for it but haven't been able to find it.  It was a while ago.  It has to do with in-group-bias (which of course women are just as likely to do as men) but the study was more focused on sexual crimes and victim blaming.  I'll keep looking.

Quote

Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/women-anticipate-potential-threats-better-men-uc-davis-research-suggests

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9985350/

Here's a couple of studies.  To clarify, it's not because women are automatically better at threat detection in general.  Men are really good at threat detection as well, especially immediate threats.  Women tend to be better at anticipated threats because of our past experiences and general vulnerabilities compared to men.  We tend to recognize creepy men better than other men because we have personally had to deal with creepy men, while other men haven't, for example.  

Harris O'Malley sums it up nicely.

"Women, on the whole, don’t pose a physical threat to men; while there will always be individual exceptions, the average male is larger, stronger and heavier than the average woman. In practical terms, this means that the average man is fully capable of overpowering the average woman with relative ease… and women are very aware of this fact. Women have to gauge every interaction with men, especially men they don’t know, on whether or not he presents a threat to her.

Because women live in a state of near-constant threat awareness, they are far more cued in to the slight clues that hint at potential danger than guys are."

We can get it wrong sometimes, for sure.  Threat assessment isn't always threat confirmation.  

Quote

I would like to better understand how this shakes out in the real world.  What is it that women - as a category - can do regarding evaluating claims of sexual misconduct that men - as a category - cannot do (or do as well)?  Also, how would a bishop utilize "the women around {him}" to assess allegations of misconduct reported to him?

We can speak up and men can actually listen and not poo-poo our concerns because they know the guy and he's 'harmless' or 'a nice guy'....  A bishop could seek input and then consider it seriously.  A ward in Washington is currently dealing with the fall out of a sexual predator, who managed to molest a kid during sacrament meeting, who a bishop protected and wouldn't listen to the concerns of multiple women in his ward, for example.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Quote

I saw a study a couple of years ago that says that men struggle to believe it when another man is accused of sexual crimes or misconduct because they can relate to the man and think of how they would feel if someone was accusing them of such things and how they would want other men to respond in that situation.  They don't relate to the victim at all so they subconsciously distance themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective. 

I would be curious about this.  It seems incongruent with a few generalized observations:

Oh boy, here we go.

I have, in recent months, been attempting to deploy the principles of a book, "Habits of a Peacemaker: 10 Habits to Change Our Potentially Toxic Conversations Into Healthy Dialogues" by Steven T. Collis.  Habit One is "Intellectual Humility and Reframing"  From a summary:

Quote

Most of us know far less than we think we do (Dunning-Kruger effect). Recognizing our ignorance is the foundation of peacemaking. We must reframe conversations from “winning” to “solving a shared problem.”

• Before any hard conversation, remind yourself: “I know only a fraction of what there is to know on this topic.”
• Reframe: “This seems complex. What data/sources are we using? What cause are we trying to solve?”
• If you are the expert, use your knowledge to lay out the best arguments on both sides, not to bulldoze.

I am reminding myself that I know only a fraction of what there is to know on this topic (hence my request for the study Bluebell referenced).

The issues here, what to do with Latter-day Saints who have a past history of serious misconduct, and the prevalence of men "struggl{ing} to believe it when another man is accused of sexual crimes or misconduct," is, I think, a complex and difficult topic.  Both issues require meaningful data/sources.  Both issues deserve attention and efforts toward resolution (or at least mitigation).

I am not an expert on this topic.  My personal experience with these matters has been largely anecdotal.  So I'm not trying to "bulldoze" anyone.  Just learn.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

First, plenty of men have loved ones who are or could be subject to abuse, and hence would find any abuse abhorrent, and hence they can and do "relate to the victim." 

I would find any abuse of women abhorrent. I have women friends!!!!!

Given our long history of not getting along, I can understand your skepticism and snark.  However, I was speaking of men who are not abusers, and who are not interested in ignoring or justifying abuse, and who can relate to victims of abuse. 

I have a friend who served as a bishop, and he had to deal with a situation where the father of a family had abused one of his daughters.  My friend knew the entire family, but he did not make any excuses for the abuse, nor did he overlook it.  Instead, he looked to the welfare of the family (after the father was out of the house), arranged for therapy and financial assistance, worked with ward leaders to make sure there was no gossip about the matter (the father was arrested, so the matter had a public record of sorts), convened a membership council as to the father, conferred with the stake president and the hotline, and otherwise followed the policies and procedures outlined in the Handbook.

In other words, the Church's "system" worked as best it could under the circumstances.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, that is not how anything works. It is always the abuser defenders who have to talk about how they have a daughter or a wife or whatever.

I think men can and do find abuse abhorrent.  Some few within that category are predatory, and may therefore feign abhorrence to hide who they are.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Really? So if you didn’t care about a woman you would support abuse generally?

I am not sure what you are saying here.  I find abuse abhorrent. 

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You can tell how insincere it is by the fact that they feel they have to present proof that they know women.

Well, that's an interesting perspective.  What do you think a sincere man could do to demonstrate his abhorrence of abuse?

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In any case this isn’t some logical conclusion. You can care about women and still defend abusers. Men (and women) do it all the time. 

I agree with you.  But again, I was responding to a generalization about men, that is, that men "struggle to believe it when another man is accused of sexual crimes" and "don't relate to the victim at all so they subconsciously distance themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective."  My point is that plenty of men don't struggle to believe that abuse happens, and do relate to victims, and don't "defend abusers."

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Second, plenty of men have themselves been victims of abuse, and so not only "relate to" victims, but have experienced abuse themselves.

Abused people do not automatically develop empathy for people who are abused.

I agree.  But some (many?) do.  

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Generational abuse exists in defiance of this imagined standard you are proposing where abuse victims will be appalled and oppose all abuse.

I acknowledge that some victims of abuse themselves become victimizers.  Some do not, and instead find abuse abhorrent and stop the cycle.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Third, I think some (many?) men are scared of being falsely accused of misconduct of this sort.  This has perhaps been augmented by the past many years of the "Believe All Women" and "MeToo" regimes, which have effectively inverted the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption, at least as to men as a category.  Perhaps some men are therefore reluctant to reflexively and uncritically accept every published allegation of misconduct, and this reluctance is then construed by some as "subconsciously distanc{ing} themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective."

No, it is just reflexively taking the man’s side cloaked in imagined fears and conspiracy mongering and misogyny about all those lying women.

Again, I was responding to a generalized statement that men "subconsciously distance themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman."  I think a lot of men "distance themselves" because there is seemingly no "right" way to respond to abuse.  Our conversation here is perhaps demonstrative of that.  If a man says he finds abuse abhorrent, he risks exposure to insinuations and accusations of false dealing and insincerity:

• "I would find any abuse of women abhorrent. I have women friends!!!!!"
• "You can care about women and still defend abusers."
• "You can tell how insincere it is by the fact that they feel they have to present proof that they know women."
• "No, it is just reflexively taking the man’s side cloaked in imagined fears and conspiracy mongering and misogyny about all those lying women."

These seem to come pretty close to false accusations.  I have said nothing to justify or excuse abuse, or to feign condemnation of abuse, or to defend abusers.

This seems like a "heads I lose, tails I lose" circumstance.  No matter what is said, an accusation can be extracted from it. 

Are there men, then, who "subconsciously distance themselves from the {} child or the woman" because their words can be twisted into accusations (such as "misogyny about all those lying women")?  I think so. 

Do some of these men, then, elect to remain quiet rather than face unpleasant and accusatory commentary, such as what you have said here?  I think so. 

Can this silence be construed in some quarters as them "{not} relat{ing} to the victim," or "distanc{ing} themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective"?  I think so.

I am coming away from this discussion with a reduced willingness to address these issues.  

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

A while back a young woman of my acquaintance rather matter-of-factly stated that it is entirely normal in her "generation" of young women to view all men - all men - as "potential rapists," and that she shares this sentiment.  She was surprised that I was surprised at this statement.  In fact, I think she was a little offended that I was surprised.  I asked her "What would you say to a friend if she told you that she views all black men as 'potential rapists?'"  She responded along the lines of "Well, that would be terrible and racist."  I asked her why, since some black men do commit rape, and she responded: "Yes, but you can't blame all black men just because some few of them do something wrong."  I then told her that I agreed with her on that point, but I then asked why it does not apply to her "all men are 'potential rapists'" statement.  She could not formulate a response.

And everyone stood up and clapped.

I’ll take “Things That Didn’t Happen” for $100 Alex.

Perhaps some context may help here.

The above statement from the young woman was not unprompted.  We had been discussing an experience she had had in which she had felt unsafe in a store parking lot at night.  She said a man had walked by her and made her felt nervous.  I said that this was an understandable response, as situational awareness is an important thing.  I then told her an experience I had had, which have previously described here:

Quote

Quote

Try explaining the situation first far enough away that you can’t grab her and give her a choice.  Plus a lot of women carry these days. You playing at being hero could get a gun pointed at you, not the guy in the bike. 

Some years ago I was teaching at a local university.  I usually started my day very early, at 6:00 a.m.  I had to park my car and walk a fair distance through several inter-connected buildings to get to my office.

One such morning I found myself walking toward my office about 50 feet behind a young woman.  At that time of day there was nobody else around.  I shortly realized that I was making her nervous.  I had not said or done anything, and I had not closed the gap between us, but she looked back at me a few times in quick succession, and she looked nervous.  

So I called to her and said "Hey, my name is Spencer Macdonald.  I teach here and am headed to my office in ___________ building.  It looks like we are headed in the same direction.  I can see that I am making you nervous.  I am sorry about that.  I will stop for a few minutes and let you get to wherever you are going.  Sound good?"  She smiled, nodded and said "Yes, thanks," and continued on her way.  She gave off a "sigh of relief" vibe in doing so.  I waited about five minutes and then continued toward my office.

In retrospect, I suppose I did the right thing.  I gave her my name (and that I teach, and that I was headed to my office) because the lawyer in me thought that this would give her some measure of security.  I stopped and gave her several minutes to get to her destination.  I could see that this happenstance, of her being all alone early in the morning with a stranger walking (50 feet) behind her, was putting her on edge.  I had not planned any of this, and I certainly was no threat to her, but she did not know that.  So I felt it best to, as you put it, "give her a choice."  I don't blame the young woman for feeling a bit nervous, even though she was in no actual danger from me.  The confluence of events (early morning, nobody around, a stranger walking behind her) was what it was.  I mitigated the situation by communicating with her and then giving her a few minutes to get to her destination.  Problem solved.

It was then that the young woman nodded and said that she and the "generation" of young women around her view all men as "potential rapists."  I then responded as noted above.

The conversation continued on a bit about differentiating "men" based on a "situational awareness" context.  I said something like this: "Going back to my experience with the college student, what if I had been walking behind her several hours later in the day, when there are dozens/hundreds of people around?  Would she have had the same reaction to my presence?"  She said "No, because you would not be a potential threat to her because other people are around."  We then had a discussion about generalizations about men, namely, that thinking of all men everywhere as always being "potential rapists" is probably not really happening, but that particularized circumstances, such as a woman being alone in a secluded public space and being approached by an unknown male, can justify a woman in making an in-the-moment adverse inference about the man's intentions.

So it seems that I was misunderstanding her generalization, or she was generalizing it a bit much, or a bit of both.  Either way, the conversation ended being helpful in me better understanding her perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've tried looking for it but haven't been able to find it.  It was a while ago.  It has to do with in-group-bias (which of course women are just as likely to do as men) but the study was more focused on sexual crimes and victim blaming.  I'll keep looking.

Thank you for your response.  

The article in your link does not seem to quantify or define "in-group" or "out-group."  I'm not sure I have conceptualized men as my "in-group" and women as an "out-group."  I'll think on that.  

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/women-anticipate-potential-threats-better-men-uc-davis-research-suggests

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9985350/

Here's a couple of studies.  To clarify, it's not because women are automatically better at threat detection in general.  Men are really good at threat detection as well, especially immediate threats.  Women tend to be better at anticipated threats because of our past experiences and general vulnerabilities compared to men.  We tend to recognize creepy men better than other men because we have personally had to deal with creepy men, while other men haven't, for example.  

Harris O'Malley sums it up nicely.

"Women, on the whole, don’t pose a physical threat to men; while there will always be individual exceptions, the average male is larger, stronger and heavier than the average woman. In practical terms, this means that the average man is fully capable of overpowering the average woman with relative ease… and women are very aware of this fact. Women have to gauge every interaction with men, especially men they don’t know, on whether or not he presents a threat to her.

Because women live in a state of near-constant threat awareness, they are far more cued in to the slight clues that hint at potential danger than guys are."

We can get it wrong sometimes, for sure.  Threat assessment isn't always threat confirmation.  

Some good thoughts here.

Broadly speaking, I differentiate communications and interactions based on sex.  I feel more at ease at striking up a conversation with another man than with a woman.  I live near a walking trail, and when I find myself walking behind a woman, I slow down or stop or turn around so as to give her plenty of space.  I don't do that when I am walking behind a man.  Same goes for parking lots at night.  I have a number of close male friends, but I have no close female friends except those who also have a friendship with my wife.  I never get close to or talk to children unless their parents are immediately nearby, and often not even then.

I think most of this has as much or more to do with propriety and decorum than with thoughts of mitigating safety concerns.

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We can speak up and men can actually listen and not poo-poo our concerns because they know the guy and he's 'harmless' or 'a nice guy'....  A bishop could seek input and then consider it seriously.  A ward in Washington is currently dealing with the fall out of a sexual predator, who managed to molest a kid during sacrament meeting, who a bishop protected and wouldn't listen to the concerns of multiple women in his ward, for example.

That's a terrible thing.  Short of excluding the man from church services, what do you think the bishop should have done to better address the situation?  From a comment I made earlier in this thread:

Quote

Some years ago our ward's bishop noticed a new face in the congregation.  The man introduced himself and said he had lost his membership due to sexual abuse of children.  The bishop said he could come to church services, but he would need to be accompanied by another ward member.  The bishop had a ward member, a former police officer, greet him at the door and accompany him while he was in the building.  The man only came to services only a few times.  The bishop took appropriate precautions, and I think he did a good job in addressing the circumstances. 

Do you think something along those lines would work?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Wednesday at 04:29 PM by smac97

[bluebell]

On 5/26/2026 at 9:35 AM, smac97 said:

 

A while back a young woman of my acquaintance rather matter-of-factly stated that it is entirely normal in her "generation" of young women to view all men - all men - as "potential rapists," and that she shares this sentiment.  She was surprised that I was surprised at this statement.  In fact, I think she was a little offended that I was surprised.  I asked her "What would you say to a friend if she told you that she views all black men as 'potential rapists?'"  She responded along the lines of "Well, that would be terrible and racist."  I asked her why, since some black men do commit rape, and she responded: "Yes, but you can't blame all black men just because some few of them do something wrong."  I then told her that I agreed with her on that point, but I then asked why it does not apply to her "all men are 'potential rapists'" statement.  She could not formulate a response.

 

I don't know why you would be surprised that women have to treat all men as a potential threat until they know better.  It just makes sense.  Men's violence is the single biggest threat to a woman's safety.  Between 85% and 99% of all physical and sexual violence committed against women is committed by men.  9 out of 10 women will be physically harmed by a man she actually knows during her lifetime.  1 in 3 will experience sexual or physical violence at the hand of a man in her lifetime.  1 in 2 (44%!) will experience some form of unwanted sexual contact during their lifetime.   With those odds, we'd be really dumb not to be wary around men in vulnerable situations.  We'd be idiots to ignore those statistics just because it a man might think it's unfair to be judged based on their gender.  Oh well.

And why would any man who cares about women want us to ignore those statistics??

I live in the mountain west and in my area between 17% and 45% of mountain streams contain giardia.  It's a nasty parasite that will make you very very sick pretty fast.  Do you know what percentage of streams experts suggest people drink out of without purifying first?  0%.  They teach us to treat all streams as a potential threat, because you can't tell the difference between a clean water source and an infected water source just by looking at it.  They teach us this because the potential for harm isn't worth taking the risk, and this is when the chances of not getting it are in our favor.  

The same thing applies for women in vulnerable situations with a man. The potential for harm is so great that the risk is not worth it.  Especially since the chances are not in our favor.

 

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know why you would be surprised that women have to treat all men as a potential threat until they know better.  It just makes sense. 

Well, I wonder about this in a few ways.

First, the "have to" bit.  I don't think women "have to treat all men as a potential threat."

Second, the "until they know better" bit.  Again, consider the student I described:

Quote

Some years ago I was teaching at a local university.  I usually started my day very early, at 6:00 a.m.  I had to park my car and walk a fair distance through several inter-connected buildings to get to my office.

One such morning I found myself walking toward my office about 50 feet behind a young woman.  At that time of day there was nobody else around.  I shortly realized that I was making her nervous.  I had not said or done anything, and I had not closed the gap between us, but she looked back at me a few times in quick succession, and she looked nervous.  

So I called to her and said "Hey, my name is Spencer Macdonald.  I teach here and am headed to my office in ___________ building.  It looks like we are headed in the same direction.  I can see that I am making you nervous.  I am sorry about that.  I will stop for a few minutes and let you get to wherever you are going.  Sound good?"  She smiled, nodded and said "Yes, thanks," and continued on her way.  She gave off a "sigh of relief" vibe in doing so.  I waited about five minutes and then continued toward my office.

A few hours after I encountered this woman, the hallway we were in was full of hundreds of people.  It's likely the busiest hallway at the university.  If that young woman walked down that hallway in the middle of the day, do you think she would be viewing all of the hundreds of men walking past her as "potential threat{s}" until she "know{s} better"?  I would think it more likely that she does not view these hundreds of men, or the billions of men throughout the world, as all being "potential threat{s}" until and unless there is a circumstance that justifies such an adverse inference.

If a woman sees a man minding his own business walking along a public street during the day, I don't think she needs to view him as a presumptive/potential "rapist" and vet him and confirm his status as a non-threat.

Alternatively, if a woman is walking toward her car late at night in a dark and empty parking lot and sees a man approaching her, then she is likely justified in viewing him as a potential threat until she knows better.

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Men's violence is the single biggest threat to a woman's safety.  Between 85% and 99% of all physical and sexual violence committed against women is committed by men. 9 out of 10 women will be physically harmed by a man she actually knows during her lifetime.  1 in 3 will experience sexual or physical violence at the hand of a man in her lifetime.  1 in 2 (44%!) will experience some form of unwanted sexual contact during their lifetime.   With those odds, we'd be really dumb not to be wary around men in vulnerable situations.  We'd be idiots to ignore those statistics just because it a man might think it's unfair to be judged based on their gender.  Oh well.

And why would any man who cares about women want us to ignore those statistics??

I appreciate you sharing those statistics and your perspective.  Your concern comes from a genuine place of wanting women to be safe, and I respect that. Violence against women is a serious issue, and we should never minimize real harm.

That said, I want to gently push back on the idea that women should treat all men as “potential rapists” or inherent threats until proven otherwise. I think that framing, even if it feels protective, can be psychologically unhealthy and unfair.

Some of the numbers you cited are directionally true but get overstated:

• The vast majority of violence against women (85–99% for sexual violence, high 80s–90s for severe physical violence) is indeed committed by men. That’s real.
• However, the claim that “9 out of 10 women will be physically harmed by a man she knows” is not, I think, supported by major studies. CDC data shows lifetime severe physical violence by an intimate partner is closer to 1 in 4, and broader physical aggression around 1 in 3.
• “1 in 3 women experience sexual or physical violence” is roughly accurate when including intimate partner violence over a lifetime.

These are serious numbers. They justify reasonable caution in certain situations. But they don’t justify treating every man as a presumptive threat.

Here’s where I struggle: If someone said “All Black men are potential rapists” or “All Muslims are potential terrorists” because of disproportionate crime/terrorism statistics in those groups, most people would correctly call that prejudiced and dehumanizing. It takes real, painful data and turns it into collective guilt.

Why does the same logic suddenly become acceptable when applied to men as a category?

Most men are not rapists or abusers. The best research suggests that somewhere between 5–10% of men commit rape (with a smaller group of repeat offenders responsible for most assaults). The overwhelming majority of men — fathers, brothers, husbands, friends — never commit sexual violence. Painting all men with the actions of that minority is the very definition of prejudice.

I think the healthier mindset is: Be situationally aware, not categorically distrustful.

Most women already do this naturally — they assess individuals based on behavior, context, and red flags rather than assuming every man is dangerous until proven innocent. That approach protects women without poisoning relationships or treating half the population as inherently suspect.

Viewing all men as potential rapists doesn’t just harm men — it harms women too. It fosters chronic anxiety, damages trust in healthy relationships, and makes it harder to see good men clearly when they show up.

I care about women’s safety. That is why I think we should be precise with the data and avoid overgeneralizations that treat men as a monolith. Real safety comes from smart risk assessment and strong communities, not blanket suspicion based on gender.

What do you think? I’d genuinely like to hear your thoughts — I’m not trying to win an argument, just understand where you’re coming from.

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I live in the mountain west and in my area between 17% and 45% of mountain streams contain giardia.  It's a nasty parasite that will make you very very sick pretty fast.  Do you know what percentage of streams experts suggest people drink out of without purifying first?  0%.  They teach us to treat all streams as a potential threat, because you can't tell the difference between a clean water source and an infected water source just by looking at it.  They teach us this because the potential for harm isn't worth taking the risk, and this is when the chances of not getting it are in our favor.  

The same thing applies for women in vulnerable situations with a man. The potential for harm is so great that the risk is not worth it.  Especially since the chances are not in our favor.

I get where you're coming from with the stream analogy — it's a smart survival rule in the backcountry. Giardia is nasty, you can't see it, and the cost of filtering water is low. Better safe than sorry.

But I think the analogy breaks down when applied to men as a whole. I think the risk levels are very different:

• With streams in your area, 17–45% are contaminated — that's an extremely high base rate.
• The lifetime risk that a random man will sexually assault a woman is much lower. While the statistics on violence against women are serious (and we should take them seriously), the vast majority of men are not rapists or abusers. Best research puts male rape perpetration somewhere in the 5–10% range lifetime, with a smaller group of repeat offenders responsible for most incidents.

Treating every single stream as potentially contaminated makes sense because the hit rate is high. Treating every man as a "potential rapist" until proven otherwise is different — it's assuming a much higher risk from every individual than the data supports.

Further, I think you can assess men better than streams.  Unlike water, you can (and should) evaluate people based on:

• Their behavior and demeanor
• Context and setting
• Reputation and how others speak about them
• Whether they respect boundaries

Most women already do this instinctively. Blanket "all men are threats" thinking removes that nuance and replaces it with categorical suspicion. That’s a heavy psychological load to carry.

The categorical suspicion comes with some real costs.  Treating all men as potential threats might feel protective, but it also:

• Risks creating chronic anxiety and hypervigilance;
• Makes it harder to build healthy relationships with good men; and
• Can lead to unfair prejudice (the same logic would be called sexist or bigoted if applied to other groups).

I completely agree women should be smart and cautious "in vulnerable situations."  Situational awareness is wise. But moving from “be careful” to “treat all men as potential rapists” feels like it goes too far and does real damage — both to women and to men who have never harmed anyone.

I’m not saying women should be naive. I’m saying the “treat every man as a threat” approach might be overcorrecting in a way that’s not actually making women safer or happier.

Happy to keep talking about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Wednesday at 05:25 PM by smac97

[Calm]

On 5/26/2026 at 9:35 AM, smac97 said:

asked her "What would you say to a friend if she told you that she views all black men as 'potential rapists?'" 

I would ask her if she viewed all white, Asian, etc men the same way.  If she did, if there was a reason besides picking the race out randomly to speak about (perhaps she is black and was speaking about how she feels in the Black community because someone asked her if she felt safer or something), then there is no reason imo to view her comment as racist, but simply an unfortunate but appropriate defense mechanism so as to be prepared….because the only thing a woman can be sure of is that most rapists don’t have obvious markers identifying them as rapists.  And given the stats friendships or familiarity is no guarantee since most victims are abused by people they know and trust, including close family members.

This does not mean a woman should never feel secure in a man’s presence.  If you have been living with someone for decades and have seen them in multiple situations and there is no indication of possible issues, I don’t think it’s unwise to relax.  But seriously, the possibility should always be considered an option so that red flags don’t get ignored for years because ‘it’s impossible, I know him too well’.

It’s not a bad idea to view women as potential abusers imo.  Less likely to be rapists according to stats, but there is still physical and verbal abuse we shouldn’t be dismissive of.   No one deserves being abused.

Quote

"  I asked her why, since some black men do commit rape, and she responded: "Yes, but you can't blame all black men just because some few of them do something wrong."  I then told her that I agreed with her on that point, but I then asked why it does not apply to her "all men are 'potential rapists'" statement.  She could not formulate a response

Probably because you changed the conversation to blame and she didn’t register the shift, but went along with it…which can often happen when arguments are misunderstood and reformulated by another if one is inexperienced.

It’s not about blame I suspect for most women….at least not the ones I have talked to and not for me.  It’s about being prepared so I am likely to be better at avoiding becoming a victim..

I treat all cars driving around me as potential bad drivers.   I keep a significant distance from any car.  I increase that distance if there are signs of bad driving like crossing lines.  Do you believe defensive driving is illogical or wrong?

I do think it would be best to change the language to “anyone could be a potential abuser” as the difference is significant and all of us should be aware enough to spot red flags even if it’s unhealthy to focus primarily on that with each new relationship.  Some stats are 1 in 3 women globally are subjected to violence vs 1 in 5 to sexual violence and there’s no reason imo to give women a pass just because certain forms of violence are less for them.

Edited Wednesday at 08:57 PM by Calm

[MustardSeed]

I do view all men as potential rapists.  All men. Until I have information that says otherwise.  Context also matters.  If I’m walking down a hallway with many people I’m not worried about each man or getting raped.  But if I’m alone in a parking lot and any male I don’t know approaches, I’m preparing mentally for rape. every time.
 

context matters.   
 

 

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

asked her "What would you say to a friend if she told you that she views all black men as 'potential rapists?'" 

I would ask her if she viewed all white, Asian, etc men the same way.  

Thank you for your response.  Could you elaborate here?  What does this illuminate?  If she says "No, I only view black men as 'potential rapists,'" is that appropriate?

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

If she did, if there was a reason besides picking the race out randomly to speak about

But what if her reason(s) is/are not "random"?  What if she has had some very bad experiences with a few black men?  Is she therefore justified in taking those bad experiences and extrapolating them across all black men?  If not, why not?

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

This does not mean a woman should never feel secure in a man’s presence.  If you have been living with someone for decades and have seen them in multiple situations and there is no indication of possible issues, I don’t think it’s unwise to relax.  But seriously, the possibility should always be considered an option so that red flags don’t get ignored for years because ‘it’s impossible, I know him too well’.

Okay.  Does this apply to other forms of misconduct?  Some men are pedophiles, so "the possibility {that any particular man is a pedophile} should always be considered an option" as to all men?

Also, what are your thoughts about this?

Quote

Blanket "all men are threats" thinking removes that nuance and replaces it with categorical suspicion. That’s a heavy psychological load to carry.

The categorical suspicion comes with some real costs.  Treating all men as potential threats might feel protective, but it also:

• Risks creating chronic anxiety and hypervigilance;
• Makes it harder to build healthy relationships with good men; and
• Can lead to unfair prejudice (the same logic would be called sexist or bigoted if applied to other groups).

I completely agree women should be smart and cautious "in vulnerable situations."  Situational awareness is wise. But moving from “be careful” to “treat all men as potential rapists” feels like it goes too far and does real damage — both to women and to men who have never harmed anyone.

I’m not saying women should be naive. I’m saying the “treat every man as a threat” approach might be overcorrecting in a way that’s not actually making women safer or happier.

I really do want to understand your reasoning here.  

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

It’s not a bad idea to view women as potential abusers imo.  Less likely to be rapists according to stats, but there is still physical and verbal abuse we shouldn’t be dismissive of.   No one deserves being abused.

I agree that no one deserves being abused.  But I am concerned whether vigilance against abuse should include viewing entire categories of people as inchoate rapists, abusers, pedophiles, etc. because some small portion of them have done these terrible things.  

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I asked her "What would you say to a friend if she told you that she views all black men as 'potential rapists?'"  She responded along the lines of "Well, that would be terrible and racist."  I asked her why, since some black men do commit rape, and she responded: "Yes, but you can't blame all black men just because some few of them do something wrong."  I then told her that I agreed with her on that point, but I then asked why it does not apply to her "all men are 'potential rapists'" statement.  She could not formulate a response.

Probably because you changed the conversation to blame and she didn’t register the shift, but went along with it…which can often happen when arguments are misunderstood and reformulated by another if one is inexperienced.

Could you elaborate here?  I don't see the shift you reference here.  

The reasoning seems to be that A) some men commit rape, therefore B) all men, regardless of character or conduct or circumstance, are justifiably viewed as "potential rapists." 

All I did was change the category: A) some {black} men commit rape, therefore B) all {black} men, regardless of character or conduct or circumstance, are justifiably viewed as "potential rapists." 

Again:

Quote

Here’s where I struggle: If someone said “All Black men are potential rapists” or “All Muslims are potential terrorists” because of disproportionate crime/terrorism statistics in those groups, most people would correctly call that prejudiced and dehumanizing. It takes real, painful data and turns it into collective guilt.

Why does the same logic suddenly become acceptable when applied to men as a category?

Most men are not rapists or abusers. The best research suggests that somewhere between 5–10% of men commit rape (with a smaller group of repeat offenders responsible for most assaults). The overwhelming majority of men — fathers, brothers, husbands, friends — never commit sexual violence. Painting all men with the actions of that minority is the very definition of prejudice.

What are your thoughts about this?

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

I treat all cars driving around me as potential bad drivers.   I keep a significant distance from any car.  I increase that distance if there are signs of bad driving like crossing lines.  Do you believe defensive driving is illogical or wrong?

I think your defensive driving analogy is a good one, and I mostly agree with the underlying idea: caution and risk awareness are smart.

We should drive defensively. We keep distance, stay alert, and adjust based on behavior. That’s responsible.

However, I think the analogy breaks down when we move from “treat all cars as potential bad drivers” to “treat all men as potential rapists.”

I can think of at least two key differences:

• Defensive driving assumes human error is common — not that every driver is actively trying to hurt you. You don’t assume the person in the next lane is a psychopath who wants to kill you. You assume they might be distracted, inexperienced, or make a mistake.
• Saying “treat all men as potential rapists” goes much further. It assigns moral suspicion and the possibility of serious criminal intent to half the population by default. It’s closer to saying “treat every driver as a potential drunk driver who might deliberately ram you.” That level of assumption crosses into prejudging character, not just managing risk.

Most men are not rapists — just like most drivers are not dangerous maniacs. The data shows that while male violence is a real problem, the vast majority of men never commit sexual violence. Blanket suspicion based on gender alone starts to look more like prejudice than prudent caution.

I’m not arguing for naivety. Women should absolutely be situationally aware, especially in vulnerable settings. They should look for red flags in behavior, respect their instincts, and avoid unnecessary risks. That’s wise.

But moving from “be careful and observant” to “all men are potential rapists until proven otherwise” has real costs: increased anxiety, damaged trust in healthy relationships, and unfair stereotyping of millions of decent men.

Would you agree there’s a meaningful difference between prudent risk management and categorical suspicion of an entire group?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Wednesday at 08:55 PM by smac97

[Calm]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would like to better understand this.  What is it that you think the Church can/ought/must do to properly "deal with perps" that it (or, more precisely, its bishops) are not currently doing?

Thanks,

-Smac

I personally think anytime a “perp” comes into counseling or shows up a member attending, there should be a professional trained in counseling and safety procedures for a stake that is assigned to supervise the bishop to ensure proper safety measures are undertaken and continued even when bishops are changed.  This may be a confidentiality issue, but if one is clergy and the other is a therapist, wouldn’t it still qualify?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

She said "No, because you would not be a potential threat to her because other people are around." 

And she would be wrong to feel completely safe.  Look at assault stats on public transportation, for example.  It’s not just empty compartments, crowded buses and trains give lots of opportunities.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What if she has had some very bad experiences with a few black men?  Is she therefore justified in taking those bad experiences and extrapolating them across all black men?  If not, why not?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

No, reasonably based on stats she should be extrapolating them to all men.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

think your defensive driving analogy is a good one, and I mostly agree with the underlying idea: caution and risk awareness are smart.

We should drive defensively. We keep distance, stay alert, and adjust based on behavior. That’s responsible.

However, I think the analogy breaks down when we move from “treat all cars as potential bad drivers” to “treat all men as potential rapists.”

I think you are making incorrect assumptions about what I and maybe others mean by being prepared for possible violence from any man (anyone for me…the most violent experience in my life was with a woman) or treating men as potential rapists/abusers.  It does not mean the same as treating men as abusers/rapists.

Edited Wednesday at 11:25 PM by Calm

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

I personally think anytime a “perp” comes into counseling or shows up a member attending, there should be a professional trained in counseling and safety procedures for a stake that is assigned to supervise the bishop to ensure proper safety measures are undertaken and continued even when bishops are changed.  This may be a confidentiality issue, but if one is clergy and the other is a therapist, wouldn’t it still qualify?

What sort of "counseling" training do you envision?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

What if she has had some very bad experiences with a few black men?  Is she therefore justified in taking those bad experiences and extrapolating them across all black men?  If not, why not?

No, reasonably based on stats she should be extrapolating them to all men.

What if her reasoning leads her to extrapolate as to all black men?  Is that acceptable in your view?  If not, why not?

Again, not really trying to argue as much as understand.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What sort of "counseling" training do you envision?

Thanks,

-Smac

A mental health professional.  I think the Church should hire professionals for this.  Doesn’t have to be a full time job.  Consulting would work probably. 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What if her reasoning leads her to extrapolate as to all black men?  Is that acceptable in your view?  If not, why not?

Again, not really trying to argue as much as understand.  

Thanks,

-Smac

It’s not logical since the threat exists with all men.   She is not being properly aware if she chooses to ignore potential threats from whites or others besides black men. To be safer, she needs to expand her caution to all men. 
 

I almost got wiped out by a wheelbarrow flying off a landscaping pickup on the freeway.  I tend to be extra alert when I see landscape vehicles with wheelbarrows, but I still drive defensively with all cars.  Just extrapolating to all black men would be like extrapolating to all red cars.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

A mental health professional.  I think the Church should hire professionals for this.  Doesn’t have to be a full time job.  Consulting would work probably. 

This person would provide training to bishops and stake presidents?  Regarding how to work with ward members with past histories of abuse?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

What if her reasoning leads her to extrapolate as to all black men?  Is that acceptable in your view?  If not, why not?

Again, not really trying to argue as much as understand.  

It’s not logical since the threat exists with all men.  

Thank you for your response.  I don't understand the "the treat exists with all men" part.  As I noted earlier:

Quote

Here’s where I struggle: If someone said “All Black men are potential rapists” or “All Muslims are potential terrorists” because of disproportionate crime/terrorism statistics in those groups, most people would correctly call that prejudiced and dehumanizing. It takes real, painful data and turns it into collective guilt.

Why does the same logic suddenly become acceptable when applied to men as a category?

Most men are not rapists or abusers. The best research suggests that somewhere between 5–10% of men commit rape (with a smaller group of repeat offenders responsible for most assaults). The overwhelming majority of men — fathers, brothers, husbands, friends — never commit sexual violence. Painting all men with the actions of that minority is the very definition of prejudice.

I think the healthier mindset is: Be situationally aware, not categorically distrustful.

What are your thoughts about this?

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

She is not being properly aware if she chooses to ignore potential threats from whites or others besides black men. To be safer, she needs to expand her caution to all men. 

Some women commit abuse as well.  Should she "expand her caution" to all women?  If the actions of a few men justify imputing collective guilt onto all men, would not the same reasoning apply to imputing collective guilt onto women for the actions of a few of them?

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I almost got wiped out by a wheelbarrow flying off a landscaping pickup on the freeway.  I tend to be extra alert when I see landscape vehicles with wheelbarrows, but I still drive defensively with all cars.  Just extrapolating to all black men would be like extrapolating to all red cars.

I agree with the core of your driving analogy — being generally defensive and extra cautious around higher-risk vehicles (like landscaping trucks with loose loads) makes sense. Situational awareness is smart.

However, I think your response actually reinforces my concern rather than resolving it.

You said it’s not logical to extrapolate caution only to black men because “the threat exists with all men,” and that she should expand her caution to every man. That’s exactly the kind of categorical thinking I’m pushing back on.

If we accept the logic that “because some men commit violence, all men should be treated as potential rapists,” then the same logic could be applied to any demographic group that has disproportionate crime statistics in certain categories. But you (and most people) rightly reject applying that same blanket suspicion to “all Black men.”

That’s the inconsistency I’m trying to highlight.

You said being extra alert around landscaping trucks is reasonable, but treating all red cars as dangerous would be irrational. I agree.  Here’s the key distinction:

• Treating certain behaviors or visible risk factors with extra caution (loose loads, reckless driving, etc.) = smart risk management.
• Treating an entire category of people as inherently suspect based on group membership (all men, all Black men, all Muslims, etc.) = prejudice.

The leap from “some men are dangerous” to “treat all men as potential rapists until proven otherwise” is the same kind of overgeneralization you correctly reject when applied to race. Both rely on the same flawed reasoning: using group averages to justify preemptive suspicion of every individual in that group.

I’m not saying women should be naive or ignore real risks. Situational awareness, trusting instincts, and avoiding genuinely vulnerable situations are all wise. But defaulting to “all men are potential threats” is both statistically overstated and morally problematic. It damages trust, increases anxiety, and treats millions of good men as guilty until proven innocent.

What do you think? Does the distinction between “be cautious around risky behavior” and “be suspicious of an entire sex/race by default” make sense to you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This person would provide training to bishops and stake presidents?  Regarding how to work with ward members with past histories of abuse?

Thanks,

-Smac

Training as needed, but on an ongoing basis they should evaluate the person and tell the bishop what safety measures should be in place in each case, which the bishop is required to follow, not just see as suggestions.  And then the pro supervises (visits the ward or talks to members) to ensure their instructions are followed over time.  And anyone with concerns can go to them as well as the bishop.  The person being watched could also express concerns, both request for help or if they are being harassed or mistreated somehow and the bishop isn’t taking that seriously.

Edited Wednesday at 11:31 PM by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The leap from “some men are dangerous” to “treat all men as potential rapists until proven otherwise” is the same kind of overgeneralization you correctly reject when applied to race. Both rely on the same flawed reasoning: using group averages to justify preemptive suspicion of every individual in that group.

So you don’t think women should be cautious with every man (or person if you prefer like I do) until proven otherwise?  What determines in your view who they should be cautious with and who they shouldn’t be cautious with?

I am trying to understand what you are seeing when you hear this so I can communicate my own position better, not challenging or nitpicking….just trying different questions in hopes of getting the details that help me understand.

I am thinking you view suspicion in this case differently than I do…as the person is being negatively evaluated as bad as opposed to simply not making a decision they are safe and therefore staying prepared for both safety and danger.

Do you take issue a problem with the phrase “every man is a potential non rapist”?

Edited Thursday at 12:58 AM by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

This person would provide training to bishops and stake presidents?  Regarding how to work with ward members with past histories of abuse?

Training as needed, but on an ongoing basis they should evaluate the person and tell the bishop what safety measures should be in place in each case, which the bishop is required to follow, not just see as suggestions.  And then the pro supervises (visits the ward or talks to members) to ensure their instructions are followed over time.  And anyone with concerns can go to them as well as the bishop.  The person being watched could also express concerns, both request for help or if they are being harassed or mistreated somehow and the bishop isn’t taking that seriously.

Could you explain why a therapist is situated well to provide logistical guidance to bishops in relation to "safety measures" and such?  Is that part of their training?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

The leap from “some men are dangerous” to “treat all men as potential rapists until proven otherwise” is the same kind of overgeneralization you correctly reject when applied to race. Both rely on the same flawed reasoning: using group averages to justify preemptive suspicion of every individual in that group.

So you don’t think women should be cautious with every man (or person if you prefer like I do) until proven otherwise?  

I said previously:

Quote

I completely agree women should be smart and cautious "in vulnerable situations."  Situational awareness is wise. But moving from “be careful” to “treat all men as potential rapists” feels like it goes too far and does real damage — both to women and to men who have never harmed anyone.

I’m not saying women should be naive. I’m saying the “treat every man as a threat” approach might be overcorrecting in a way that’s not actually making women safer or happier.
...

Most men are not rapists — just like most drivers are not dangerous maniacs. The data shows that while male violence is a real problem, the vast majority of men never commit sexual violence. Blanket suspicion based on gender alone starts to look more like prejudice than prudent caution.

I’m not arguing for naivety. Women should absolutely be situationally aware, especially in vulnerable settings. They should look for red flags in behavior, respect their instincts, and avoid unnecessary risks. That’s wise.
...

The leap from “some men are dangerous” to “treat all men as potential rapists until proven otherwise” is the same kind of overgeneralization you correctly reject when applied to race. Both rely on the same flawed reasoning: using group averages to justify preemptive suspicion of every individual in that group.

I’m not saying women should be naive or ignore real risks. Situational awareness, trusting instincts, and avoiding genuinely vulnerable situations are all wise. But defaulting to “all men are potential threats” is both statistically overstated and morally problematic. It damages trust, increases anxiety, and treats millions of good men as guilty until proven innocent.

Perhaps we are more or less saying the same thing, but I am seeing the "potential rapist" thing as more provocative than it is actually intended to be.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What determines in your view who they should be cautious with and who they shouldn’t be cautious with?

See above.  Again:

Quote

The categorical suspicion comes with some real costs.  Treating all men as potential threats might feel protective, but it also:

• Risks creating chronic anxiety and hypervigilance;
• Makes it harder to build healthy relationships with good men; and
• Can lead to unfair prejudice (the same logic would be called sexist or bigoted if applied to other groups).

The first and second bullets here has some real poignancy for me.  I have a woman in my life who I think is in this state, and this has developed because of one or two very specific events in her life in which men behaved improperly toward her.  She never goes on dates, turns down every invitation, and speaks derisively of any man who attempts such overtures.  Although she has not specifically said it, I think she presently has no plans to marry or have children, a prospect that developed after the one or two incidents.  She is spurning "healthy relationships with good men" and overall seems to have a pretty unhealthy perspective on men as a category.  I think this is becoming entrenched in her, such that by the time she comes out of this mindset - if she ever does - she will have far fewer prospects for marriage and family.  And if she does marry, I can't help but feel sorry for her husband if he ends up living under a cloud of suspicion and imputed "potential rapist" status.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am trying to understand what you are seeing when you hear this so I can communicate my own position better, not challenging or nitpicking….just trying different questions in hopes of getting the details that help me understand.

I am thinking you view suspicion in this case differently than I do…as the person is being negatively evaluated as bad as opposed to simply not making a decision they are safe and therefore staying prepared for both safety and danger.

Do you take issue a problem with the phrase “every man is a potential non rapist”?

In what context would such a statement be used?

How about "Every man is a potential non-pedophile"?  How does negating the accusation mitigate the accusation?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Could you explain why a therapist is situated well to provide logistical guidance to bishops in relation to "safety measures" and such?  Is that part of their training?

Thanks,

-Smac

Depending on the mental health specialist…suggesting someone who specializes in such, not just some random member who is a therapist.  Might be a social worker.  Thus having to hire someone.  Hopefully a member so it would make it easier to visit the relevant wards, but wouldn’t have to be.  Somewhere like Utah, probably a number of stakes could share this employee.  Would depend on the workload.

Edited Thursday at 02:18 AM by Calm